Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction?

[Nereid]

Over on the Politics & World Affairs sub-forum, in a thread called climate risk 'to million species'*, I asserted that the Earth is the midst of the sixth mass extinction**. There was some disagreement, so I suggested that we apply the scientific method, and test the assertion. More discussion, much agreement, ... and here we are.

So, my proposal:
1) We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction.

2) Bystander and Russ propose a definition of the 'normal' or 'background' extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

3) We agree on what the actual background extinction rate has been, up to 1mya.

4) I propose a means of estimating the present extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

5) I will make an estimate of the present extinction rate; we discuss it.

Supplementary topic: if we agree that number six is in progress, then we look for causes.

Some other 'rules':
+ we establish our protocol before we begin the work; that's 1 through 5 above, plus these 'rules'
+ we restrict ourselves to peer-reviewed sources (which we post a link to, if possible)
+ I will try to keep us on track, and move us along to the next item when we're ready (I'm happy for someone else who we trust to take this role, if Bystander, Russ, Ivan or SelfAdjoint is uncomfortable with me taking it). Of course, Monique and Another God will keep us all honest [;)]

*Here's the thread:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12280

As this may be new to the denizen of Biology, let's add a 0):
0) two days for questions, suggestions (on the protocol!), etc before we start.

**The widely accepted 'five mass extinctions' occurred at the end of the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous (bye-bye dinosaurs).

[Edit: fixed typo]

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure how exactly you plan to start, but do you have any info about those 5 mass extinctions? An account of them may help with #1.

[Bystander]

Second on the summaries. If someone would care to throw in a quick heirarchy of kingdom, ..., ..., family, genus, species, it'll save me enormous embarassment.

Re. "rates," might I suggest we look at four? "General rates for appearances/emergences and extinctions of wide-ranging/widely distributed species, and the same pair of 'pocket/isolated/enisled/marooned rates' for special environment cases, Lake Victoria, Galapagos, etc.?"

[selfAdjoint]

If we're going to look for a Great Extinction, we need

(a) total number of species existing at the start of whatever period we pick (Quaternary? Holocene? Post-Glacial? Last 25,000 years?)

(b) Count of species gone extinct during period.

(c) An agreed on figure (proportion of existing species gone extinct) that will constitute a Great Extinction.

As long as we refrain from over-hastily attributing cause, that should enable us to establish the fact or otherwise of the Sixth Great Extinction hypothesis.

I hope we can hold to the schedule laid out above by Nereid, and if we do I think we will have something trustworthy.

[Phobos]

Some big names in biology have addressed this....
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html

another related link...
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/9902/fngm/

[timejim]

Originally posted by Nereid
Over on the Politics & World Affairs sub-forum, in a thread called climate risk 'to million species'*, I asserted that the Earth is the midst of the sixth mass extinction**. There was some disagreement, so I suggested that we apply the scientific method, and test the assertion. More discussion, much agreement, ... and here we are.

So, my proposal:
1) We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction.

2) Bystander and Russ propose a definition of the 'normal' or 'background' extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

3) We agree on what the actual background extinction rate has been, up to 1mya.

4) I propose a means of estimating the present extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

5) I will make an estimate of the present extinction rate; we discuss it.

Supplementary topic: if we agree that number six is in progress, then we look for causes.

Some other 'rules':
+ we establish our protocol before we begin the work; that's 1 through 5 above, plus these 'rules'
+ we restrict ourselves to peer-reviewed sources (which we post a link to, if possible)
+ I will try to keep us on track, and move us along to the next item when we're ready (I'm happy for someone else who we trust to take this role, if Bystander, Russ, Ivan or SelfAdjoint is uncomfortable with me taking it). Of course, Monique and Another God will keep us all honest [;)]

*Here's the thread:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12280

As this may be new to the denizen of Biology, let's add a 0):
0) two days for questions, suggestions (on the protocol!), etc before we start.

**The widely accepted 'five mass extinctions' occurred at the end of the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic and Cretaceous (bye-bye dinosaurs).

[Edit: fixed typo]

I think we are headed, soon, towards a new Earth and Heaven??

[Bystander]

More for the reading list: Google "david raup" + "extinction rate" and "michael foote" + "extinction rate" --- couple dozen sites for each. Raup took off on the "Nemesis" hunt after Alvarez pointed the world's attention toward catastrophism, but he did some decent analysis of "extinction events" along the way.

[Ivan Seeking]

http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/morgans/Extinction2_Apr17.pdf
http://www.cyber.vt.edu/geol3604/Extinct.pdf

[Nereid]

Bystander wrote: Second on the summaries. If someone would care to throw in a quick heirarchy of kingdom, ..., ..., family, genus, species, it'll save me enormous embarassment.
Kingdom
Phylum (Division for plants)
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

Here's one readable overview:
http://www.wordiq.com/cgi-bin/knowledge/lookup.cgi?title=Class_(biology)

[Nereid]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not sure how exactly you plan to start, but do you have any info about those 5 mass extinctions? An account of them may help with #1. A range of sources, directed at a range of audiences:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ma/massex.html
http://www.zoomdinosaurs.com/subjects/dinosaurs/glossary/Massext.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/exfiles/massintro.htm
http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/mass_extinctions.htm

[Andre]

A very creative hypothesis of Richard Muller is the relation between mass extinctions and the close encounters of a possible twin star Nemesis.

http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/lbl-nem.htm

Incidentely, a bit of a contrast, We may be in a mass extention phase indeed but not because of human actions. The events that constitute the Younger Dryas - Pre Boreal boundary 11,570 years ago, caused dozens of mega fauna species (mammots etc) to become extinct. In the mid Pleistocene, one million years to 600,000 years ago, I believe about a quarter of the oceanic foraminifea became extinct. It may have gone unnoticed by the public, but it got the oceanic biologists rather excited.

So whatever the Pleistocene has been doing to Earts biota, it may continue that way for millions of years more without the help of mankind. Palaeonthologists of hundreds of million years in the future may only recognise a single mass extinction.

On the other hand the explosion of evolution of some species in the past 10,000 years like the African Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria cichlids may compensate for the loss of other species and the total count of species may be still increasing.

And BTW, I don't think that this is science, rather hype forming propaganda:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3375447.stm

[Nereid]

Two days are up, no substantive suggested changes to the protocol (thanks for the support).

1) We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction.

Which level(s) do we look at?
Kingdom, Phylum/Division, and Class may be too broad (few exist, very few - none? - have gone extinct in one of the big 5)

Species and Genus may be too narrow (how to count them all? make robust estimates?)

-> focus on Order and Family, with appropriate consideration of Class and Genus. Yes/No/Maybe?

Which environments do we consider?
Those which leave copious numbers of fossils (e.g. shallow marine) may be better than those which don't (e.g. alpine) Does it matter that we are somewhat equivocal in how we include some environments (e.g. tundra)? or some taxa (e.g. soft invertebrates, fungi, algae)?

I'd love to trace the (non-)extinctions of my namesakes, but I suspect there'll be little fossil data to use [;)]
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/nemo/explorer/bio_gallery/biogallery-Info.00054.html

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Nereid
[B]-> focus on Order and Family, with appropriate consideration of Class and Genus. Yes/No/Maybe?

This seems to be consistent with the references.

Which environments do we consider? Those which leave copious numbers of fossils (e.g. shallow marine) may be better than those which don't (e.g. alpine) Does it matter that we are somewhat equivocal in how we include some environments (e.g. tundra)? or some taxa (e.g. soft invertebrates, fungi, algae)?

Why choose by environment? Is this intended to narrow the field for comparison?

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid
1) We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction.

Which level(s) do we look at?

Species (cross fingers, knock on wood) --- tough as that is in the fossil record.


Which environments do we consider?


Long as there is a continuous record before, through, after the event(s) we examine (major extinctions), I'd say look at whatever we can get our hands on, characterize it as sampling some "environment type" during an extinction event, and see if my hypothesis that there ain't no Lakes Malawi, Victoria, Tanganyika, Hawaiian chains, Galapagos, or Andean ridge ecologies showing up in the fossil record holds any water.

[Nereid]

Ivan asked: Why choose by environment? Is this intended to narrow the field for comparison? Primarily to ensure there's a big enough base from which to calculate a background rate that we will have some confidence in. I certainly don't want to limit the scope, but am not sure how critters which came and went without leaving a record (that we have been able to see so far) can be incorporated into our work otherwise.

[Nereid]

Bystander wrote: Species (cross fingers, knock on wood) --- tough as that is in the fossil record.Would you consider restricting this to just eukaryotes? Even there, how do we address the fact that there are widely differing estimates of the number of species of multi-cellular organisms, in most of the major Classes (think of Insecta)?Bystander wrote: Long as there is a continuous record before, through, after the event(s) we examine (major extinctions), I'd say look at whatever we can get our hands on, characterize it as sampling some "environment type" during an extinction event, and see if my hypothesis that there ain't no Lakes Malawi, Victoria, Tanganyika, Hawaiian chains, Galapagos, or Andean ridge ecologies showing up in the fossil record holds any water. If we choose to set these aside, aren't we automatically discounting "widespread loss of 'island' ecologies" as a potential cause of a mass extinction (no matter how such a loss came about)? Otherwise I think it's a very sensible place to start.

[russ_watters]

Oy - I have some homework to do...

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Oy - I have some homework to do...

That's what I keep saying.

I feel like a goldfish in a school of Tuna.

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid
If we choose to set these aside, aren't we automatically discounting "widespread loss of 'island' ecologies" as a potential cause of a mass extinction (no matter how such a loss came about)? Otherwise I think it's a very sensible place to start.

No "fossil rate" to compare 'em to, at which point, we can assume or assert any number of things: 1) there have been no isolated systems in the past, and the fossil background rate is valid as is; 2) the number of isolated systems in the past has been equivalent to what we see today, and the disappearances of those systems contributed in no way to the background rate (all organisms were integrated into the general/global system); or, 3) an equivalent number of isolated systems that disappeared without trace, and without net contribution to the number of species (comparing initial appearance of system to its disappearance).

Lake Victoria is my overworked case in point --- 400 appearances in 14000 years, and how many species in its previous live lake-dead lake cycles over the past million? Four hundred cichlids gone, but also appeared, for a net zero as far as the scoreboard goes. The isolated environments have got to be contributing a net increase in number of species over the past billion years, but the rate at which they contribute is a little tough to estimate. As far as extinctions of isolated ecologies, when they disappear, they don't take the original populations of the pioneering species with them --- "Victoria dies" does not imply the collapses of Malawi and Tanganyika cichlid populations, nor S. Amer., and points west. Tropical fish hobbyists (including me) ain't happy with the Nile perch, nor the geniuses who introduced it, but in the long run, the lake's a goner, and the Victoria cichlids are goners (barring a wet enough climate to overflow the lake into other drainage basins prior to its drying out again).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by russ_watters
Oy - I have some homework to do...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's what I keep saying.

I feel like a goldfish in a school of Tuna.

Mackerel, sharks, bluefish --- this is gonna be fun if the workload doesn't kill us all.

Edit: Horribly long-winded way of saying that inclusion of currently observed rates of extinctions of isolated species "automatically discounts" contributions of the same effect in the fossil record due to the fact that they are too insignificant to be observed there.

[Nereid]

Thanks everyone for the inputs.

Recap: step 1 is "We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction."

How about:
a) it's rapid; takes place in < 100,000 years
b) it's widespread; extinction is seen in different phyla and divisions, in widely different locations (not islands), and many different habitats
c) a significant fraction of all species (>60%) and families (>10%) go extinct.

For b):
- select 3 from the 'big 9' animal phyla (I've got my favourites; you take your pick; link:
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/awob/)
- select 3 from the 13 divisions of plants (link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant)
- if our choices take us to 'insufficient data', we'll reconsider the choices

For locations and habitats, I don't have a proposal - can someone help out?

For c): since we can't count all species (nor families?), we should agree on a robust method for making estimates.

Yes/No/'I've got a better idea'?

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid
Recap: step 1 is "We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction."

How about:
a) it's rapid; takes place in < 100,000 years

Make it an even million --- still gonna be tough to get the stratigraphy correlated among locations.


b) it's widespread; extinction is seen in different phyla and divisions, in widely different locations (not islands), and many different habitats

--- or, we can spot it in two or three different locations/stratigraphic units that are/can be correlated, and that are "continuous" records for the period of interest?


c) a significant fraction of all species (>60%) and families (>10%) go extinct.

>30% of species, or we might have to throw out one or two of the "major" extinctions.

For b):
- select 3 from the 'big 9' animal phyla (I've got my favourites; you take your pick; link:
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/awob/)

Molluscs, annelids, arthropods --- covers terrestrial and marine.


- select 3 from the 13 divisions of plants (link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant)

Whatever gives us pollen or spores.


- if our choices take us to 'insufficient data', we'll reconsider the choices

For locations and habitats, I don't have a proposal - can someone help out?

Something we can correlate to equivalent current systems --- swamps, salt marsh, estuaries, deltas?

For c): since we can't count all species (nor families?), we should agree on a robust method for making estimates.

Marker species? Ugh --- don't like that at all.

Yes/No/'I've got a better idea'?

Not necessarily "better" --- alternative, but it can wait --- it's not yet obvious to me that it'll yield any insights.

[Nereid]

Nereid: For locations and habitats, I don't have a proposal - can someone help out?
Bystander: Something we can correlate to equivalent current systems --- swamps, salt marsh, estuaries, deltas? Could someone point us to a formal classification system for habitats?Nereid: select 3 from the 'big 9' animal phyla
Bystander: Molluscs, annelids, arthropods --- covers terrestrial and marine How about chordates instead of annelides (better fossil record)?

I'm OK with 1 million years (a bit too long, but OK).

My choices of plant divisions: {TBA}

Russ? Are you still with us?

Anyone else have an opinion? want to contribute?

[Bystander]

Might as well continue with the agenda? Structured inquiry doesn't seem to be quite as stimulating as a political debate.

p.s.--- "ecosystem classification" doesn't appear to be an "exact" science.

http://modis-atmos.gsfc.nasa.gov/ECOSYSTEM/
http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cdc/sei/sunshinecoast/classification.htm
http://www.environment.govt.nz/info/froude/env-class/page29.html
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/GE251/Paleoecology.htm
http://biogeo.nos.noaa.gov/products/hawaii_cd/htm/refer.htm

[Bystander]

Okay --- time to get this pup moving again --- on to steps 2 & 3:

Originally posted by Nereid
Over on the Politics & World Affairs sub-forum, in a thread called climate risk 'to million species'*, I asserted that the Earth is the midst of the sixth mass extinction**. There was some disagreement, so I suggested that we apply the scientific method, and test the assertion. More discussion, much agreement, ... and here we are.

So, my proposal:
1) We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction.

30%? 1Ma? Three a year? I can live with that.

2) Bystander and Russ propose a definition of the 'normal' or 'background' extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

Couple approaches: 1) the number of species currently in existence is equal to the number that have appeared over the past 1-3Ga minus the number which have reached extinction over the same time period; 2) the same premise as in "1)" plus terms accounting for extinction events to remove their contributions to a background rate calculated from "1)."

Starting with approach #1,

N0 = kapp,ave(1-3Ga) - kext,ave(1-3Ga) ,
and using 10M as a round number for the current species count, we get
kapp,ave - kext,ave = 0.01 - 0.003 species per year. That is, the average NET rate of change in number of species is equal to the difference in the average appearance and extinction rates. Talk about trivial statements of the trivially obvious --- we get no absolute estimates for these rates without appealing to other estimates of the total number of species that have existed, 100-1000 times the currently existing number, or 1-10G appearances in 1-3 Ga, an average appearance rate of 0.3 - 10 species/a. The average extinction rate is then (0.3 - 10) - (0.01 - 0.003).

Approach #2: same game as 1, and subscripting N with number of Ma prior to present to indicate the number of species just prior to the extinction events, using the dates and estimated extinctions from Thomas,
N0 = 0.35N65 + (kapp -kext)65Ma,
..... (the eqtns for Triassic, Permian, and Devonian events are left as an exercise for the reader)
N370 = 0.35N440 + (kapp-kext)70Ma,

and, invoking a suspected 6th Cambrian event with a 50% loss as a guess,

N440 = 0.5N600 + (kapp - kext)160M,

and, finally, N600 = 1 + (kapp -kext)(400 to 2400Ma) .


This removes extinction losses from the average extinction rate; the suspected Cambrian event's inclusion further reduces the background extinction rate. Working backward through the equations, substituting the last, for N600, into that for N440, and into ta-da, ta-da, we get

N0 = 6 x 10-4 + (130-140 Ma)(kapp - kext). The difference between the appearance and background extinction rates has increased from 0.003 - 0.01 to 0.07 - 0.08/a ; still no real insights regarding magnitudes for the gross appearance and extinction rates.

Bottom line to this point: "There is absolutely NO merit to discussing 'extinction rates' without reference to appearance rates." The magnitudes of the differences estimated above for the two rates are two orders of magnitude less than the appearance rate of 10 species/a estimated from very crude numbers, and four to five orders of magnitude less than what can be estimated from Lake Victoria cichlid diversification. Picking out a "net extinction rate" of 3/a greater than a net appearance rate which is conceivably greater than 1000/a is going to be tough, particularly if we consider the natural noise level to be expected in such rates over human timeframes as compared to geological time frames.

3) We agree on what the actual background extinction rate has been, up to 1mya.



Comments?

[Ivan Seeking]

Can anyone name one new species to evolve in the last 100 years?

I can name many species that have gone extinct in the same time. In other words, the times scales discussed seem much too large. If we are creating a mass exinction the applicable time scale is in hundreds of years, not thousands or millions.

[Bystander]

"Absence of evidence of appearances = evidence of absence of appearances?" Not.

No global inventory, no inventory update on even a millenial basis. What's "new," and what's not is pretty much a matter of "More taste! Less filling!" debate.

[Ivan Seeking]

Ugh! Then what was the effect of mass extinctions on the appearance rates in the past? Also, why do appearance rates matter? Don’t these change as a long term result of mass extinctions and total populations; as the competition for food and habitat is reduced, and as more species are present to mutate. Given this, it would seem that the appearance rates should remain fairly constant as a function of the total number of species. Yes? No? Keep in mind I'm just a bio-pedestrian who takes his lead from the experts.

Still, the bottom line - what you're telling me - is that there is no way to know the appearance rates in the short term. But I still have a problem with the time scales. If we can show the loss of many more species than can possibly replaced in the short term, then the mass extinction hypothesis would seem to be well founded. This has always been my take. We know it takes perhaps millions of years for a completely new species to evolve, but we also know that they can be wiped out by humans and other influences in decades. This is what I believe we are seeing…at least this is the logic behind the environmental concerns today.

Then we find that there are likely key species like plankton. This also seems a significant aspect of the argument. We can likely sustain the loss of species of something or other unique to southeastern Colorado, but the loss of the world’s plankton is another issue all together. This of course is a concern related to global warming and the loss of the ocean currents created by the temperature difference between the poles and the equator. In the end, our only real interest is the effect on humans. A well populated world that cannot sustain human life is hardly an acceptable option...at least for me and my kind. [:D]

[Bystander]

Now you're getting to the questions in my mind: What is an "appearance;" what's the variation about the average appearance rate; what's the rate dependence on total number of species, pops., and available range? How do we go about counting species? Is the "North American Fire Ant" a "new" species? It's got a multiple queen system (hearsay) that isn't characteristic of the parent species. The "New World Killer Bee?"

All I can take to the bank at the moment is that appearances outnumber extinctions by the 10M, or whatever the actual number may be, species currently on the planet.

The "key species" argument brings up visions of the old "climax ecologies" of the 19th century. There may be biologists who will insist that we live in a "balanced" ecology, but the only observable property that exhibits anything close to a "constant" steady-state value might be the total biomass --- hunt that number down for a real guessing game --- it might be nailed down to an order of magnitude, but people are forever finding new biomass under icepacks, in the Sargasso, and elsewhere.

Appearance rate is going to drag in punctuated equilibrium vs. continuous vs. combination evolutionary models, and that could get into another guessing game.

You're not a biologist, I'm not a biologist, and the biologists seem to be avoiding this thread in droves. My only real bottom line with the appearance rate argument is that it's a bit odd that all the extinction alarm hasn't included any discussion of the historical appearances and the cumulative appearance/extinction score.

[Ivan Seeking]

I know the definition of a species can be somewhat arbitrary, but I guess the most viable for our purposes is the ability to produce offspring. In this sense I have long considered that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are two different species. In principle I guess they could produce a viable fetus, but due to, um, mechanical limitations, and due to other obvious problems with carrying the fetus full term [Dane the dad], I have been told that most likely this is no longer possible. Considering that all dogs have "evolved" from the wolf in recorded history, I guess that given the proper stressors we can see a mutation of a species into a new species within 4000 years. Technically not so, but in practice I would think that this is true. Just ask the Chihuahua! [:D]

Key species...hmmm. Now if you or someone else can shoot holes in this argument – the interdependency of ecosystems - then that would change a lot. This is really the basis for most environmental concerns in this regard. In the case of plankton, I think even oxygen production becomes an issue. I am pretty sure that plankton is thought to produce a large percentage of the world’s oxygen. I know this argument was used to promote deforestation, um, forest management.

[Bystander]

The Bali, Java, and Sumatra tigers: first two extinct, third endangered; separate species? or, isolated (by post glacial sea level rise) populations of tigers? Do we back up the extinction counter on this? Or, do we advance the appearance counter --- Australian rabbits, cats, rats, pigs, dromedaries?

This almost suggests that the definition for "appearance" is going to include "isolation" of populations, by whatever mechanism, that is sufficient to prevent interbreeding; whenever a population is split between/among two or more ranges that do not overlap, the number of species equals the number of ranges, genetic identity notwithstanding. Florida orange, Texas orange, California orange. Ugh, sounds like something the lawyers would pull.

[Rader]

Maybe this link will help you some to make a good estimate. It shows all the major disasters from impacts of asteroids to volcanic eruptions. Mass extinctions from crater impacts that were very large would result in long periods of no sunlight, the larger the crater the longer it would take for the dust to settle, resulting in vegetation loss immedately in first year.. The time period of impact on species, would probably be much less >100,000 years. There is a very good graph at the bottom of the page of the link, for the 5 mass extinctions and 20 minor extintions.

The Shiva Hypothesis". This describes a 30 million year cycle of mass extinctions over the past 540 million years (see diagram). One hypothesis is that this corresponds the the solar system oscillating through the galactic plane as it orbits the Milky Way. Rampino notes that the last crossing of the galactic plane occurred a few million years ago and it has been suggested that this led to a disturbance of comets in the Oort Cloud, some of which could now be approaching the inner solar system.

http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/crater.html
[8)]

[Evo]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Can anyone name one new species to evolve in the last 100 years?

I can name many species that have gone extinct in the same time. In other words, the times scales discussed seem much too large. If we are creating a mass exinction the applicable time scale is in hundreds of years, not thousands or millions. Here is an example of a newly evolved species of salmon. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/979950.stm

[Ivan Seeking]

Very interesting.

Until now, it was believed that new species took hundreds or thousands of years to appear...

And, in a separate study, insects were found to alter the way they attracted a mate in just nine generations.

The salmon study took place in Lake Washington, Washington State.

The fish were first placed there in 1937. Since then, they have split into two separate populations which prefer not to breed with each other.

Perhaps the current rate of speciation could be estimated?

Also, I think there is another issue not addressed. The rate of extinction can be related directly to habitat loss. If I understand this, we can extrapolate the loss of habitat due to, for example, deforestation in South America, and make an estimate of extinction rates that is much higher than can be directly measured. For example, if the deforestation rate remains constant for the next 50 years, we can be virtually certain of eliminating X millions of species simultaneously. I don't think this kind of reasoning applies to declared endagered species. Aren't we only considering a defintion that compares the current population of a species to the minimum required breeding population? What about populations that are not technically endangered, but that are being reduced at mass extinction rates.

[Rader]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Very interesting.



Perhaps the current rate of speciation could be estimated?

Also, I think there is another issue not addressed. The rate of extinction can be related directly to habitat loss. If I understand this, we can extrapolate the loss of habitat due to, for example, deforestation in South America, and make an estimate of extinction rates that is much higher than can be directly measured. For example, if the deforestation rate remains constant for the next 50 years, we can be virtually certain of eliminating X millions of species simultaneously. I don't think this kind of reasoning applies to declared endagered species. Aren't we only considering a defintion that compares the current population of a species to the minimum required breeding population? What about populations that are not technically endangered, but that are being reduced at mass extinction rates.

This overview lists the rate of taxonomical speciation, in other words, the number of Collembola species that have been described each year, since 1758.
From the year 1758 until now about 31 new species a year have been described. If only the last 100 years are taken into account the speciation rate is about 70 new species each year. This increases up to 93 new species a year for the post second world-war period. Finally, the last 10 years, about 82 new species are defined every year. Note the decline in the speciation rate since 1998...
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1300/doc/species.htm

New Mexican catfish species.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/4185231.htm

New New York frog species.
http://eces.org/archive/ec/np_articles/static/99586440061244.shtml

New Vietnam deer species.
http://wwfindochina.org/conservation/species/saola.shtml

Majority of life diversity yet to be discovered.
Our catalogue of Earth's diversity seems impressive, boasting some 250,000 described plant species, 750,000 insect species and 280,000 other animals. But incredibly, we have yet to discover most of the Earth's species. Scientists have documented maybe 10 or 20 percent of living things, and new species are discovered all the time.
http://www.enn.com/news/enn-stories/2001/09/09072001/s_44847.asp
[8)]

[Evo]

According to this article, scientists are sighting approximately 13,000 new species per year.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1590/9_55/55183060/print.jhtml

Of course, just because a new species is "found", doesn't mean that it hasn't been around for a long time.

Perhaps due to the dramatic increase in recent years in searching for new species, we are aware of more species becoming extinct? But I agree that the decrease in habitat and problems caused by humans have greatly endangered many species to the point of extinction that would otherwise have survived.

[Evo]

Check out this interactive atlas!!

The first link is an article explaining some of the things you can pull from it.

"An interactive atlas of the world's natural wealth paints a graphic picture of humanity's inexorable spread.

It shows that since 1850 humans have affected almost half the planet's land.

Entitled the World Atlas Of Biodiversity: Earth's Living Resources For The 21st Century, it is the work of the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (Unep-WCMC), based in Cambridge, UK.

It has been collated from the centre's research, the work of independent scientists, and governmental and other reports.

The centre says the data will be made available to users by a unique interactive mapping service accessible from the Unep-WCMC website.

This will let them create their own maps comparing subjects from wilderness density to human population.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2166306.stm

The atlas - http://stort.unep-wcmc.org/imaps/gb2002/book/viewer.htm

[Nereid]

Good to see that no one missed me [;)]

This thread has moved along quite nicely these last couple of weeks, tho' I'm a little curious as to why Russ has deserted us, and why (if?) "*SNIP You're not a biologist, I'm not a biologist, and the biologists seem to be avoiding this thread in droves." Do they know something we toy scientists don't?

Anyway, while I come up to speed, an open AP from before - choice of three Divisions of Plantae - a modest suggestion:
- Pterophyta ("ferns")
- Pinophyta ("conifers")
- Magnoliophyta ("flowering plants")
(one ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant)

... and a couple of snippets:
- defining a species is tricky; if biologically defined (crudely, can't interbreed), then the often easy hybridisation in plants poses a problem; if morphologically defined (crudely, looks different), then how to deal with the many which do look different but aren't (and vice versa)
- however you define 'species', Ivan's question hurts - no appearances of new species (except for all those pathogens we've created with our misuse of anti-biotics)
- it's certainly good fun to look for sources of mass extinctions among the stars, but IMHO they're a tad desperate (except our friend the KT, and possibly the Ordivician); plate tectonics is probably enough. Let's leave this till later in the process.

Back soon.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Bystander
Might as well continue with the agenda? Structured inquiry doesn't seem to be quite as stimulating as a political debate.

p.s.--- "ecosystem classification" doesn't appear to be an "exact" science.

http://modis-atmos.gsfc.nasa.gov/ECOSYSTEM/
http://srmwww.gov.bc.ca/cdc/sei/sunshinecoast/classification.htm
http://www.environment.govt.nz/info/froude/env-class/page29.html
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/GE251/Paleoecology.htm
http://biogeo.nos.noaa.gov/products/hawaii_cd/htm/refer.htm Third link looks quite interesting; pity it's only a draft (second link is dead).

Call to all real biologists/ecologists - can you help us please? We're looking for a link or two to a widely accepted, reasonably robust classification system for ecological systems.

[Nereid]

Bystander wrote: 30%? 1Ma? Three a year? I can live with that. Am not sure I follow the logic - we're assuming there are only 10 million species total in our 3 animal phyla and 3 plant divisions? Or you're doing an OOM (order of magnitude) check that the number seems vaguely sensible? Or Monty Python ('now for something completely different')?

[Bystander]

Just order of magnitude.

Dead links this soon? "Mass web extinction?" I really did try to pick some that looked "permanent."

Edit: 10M, 1Ma. and 3 net species extinctions/a are "boundaries" for what I can live with as the definition of an "event" that needs to be examined.

Looks like that's going to be so far below noise levels as to be undetectable; you want a higher net rate, that's cool. The gross rates are starting to look like a real problem --- we're gonna be trying to pick very small differences from two very large numbers and average them over time --- ugly.

[Evo]

Nereid, I posted an article on new species recently found in answer to Ivan's question, you may want to go back and take a look.

Here are a couple of links that I think you may find helpful.

World Research Institute

http://www.wri.org/wri/biodiv/b02-gbs.html

Their EarthTrends portal with ecosystem information

http://earthtrends.wri.org/

An excellent excerpt - Conservation Biology, this is full of great information including species extinction numbers "Declining biodiversity is a serious problem: officials at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimate that more than 500 U.S. species have gone extinct during the past 200 years. Of these, roughly 250 have gone extinct since 1980."

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/tlw3/enhancement_chapters/conservation.html

Biomes

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss5/biome/index.html

An article on another atlas, unfortunately I think it is only in book form, but looks interesting.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/san_francisco/1172896.stm

[Rader]

Originally posted by Nereid
Third link looks quite interesting; pity it's only a draft (second link is dead).

Call to all real biologists/ecologists - can you help us please? We're looking for a link or two to a widely accepted, reasonably robust classification system for ecological systems.

Online Databases
http://www.nabt.org/sub/htdi/v62n02p124.asp

Terrestrial Ecosystem Monitoring Sites
http://www.wsl.ch/rauminf/riv/datenbank/tems/database_tems.html
[8)]

[Nereid]

Bystander wrote: N0 = kapp,ave(1-3Ga) - kext,ave(1-3Ga),
and using 10M as a round number for the current species count, we get
kapp,ave - kext,ave = 0.01 - 0.003 species per year. That is, the average NET rate of change in number of species is equal to the difference in the average appearance and extinction rates. Talk about trivial statements of the trivially obvious --- we get no absolute estimates for these rates without appealing to other estimates of the total number of species that have existed, 100-1000 times the currently existing number, or 1-10G appearances in 1-3 Ga, an average appearance rate of 0.3 - 10 species/a. The average extinction rate is then (0.3 - 10) - (0.01 - 0.003).

Approach #2: same game as 1, and subscripting N with number of Ma prior to present to indicate the number of species just prior to the extinction events, using the dates and estimated extinctions from Thomas,
N0 = 0.35N65 + (kapp - kext)65Ma,
..... (the eqtns for Triassic, Permian, and Devonian events are left as an exercise for the reader)
N370 = 0.35N440 + (kapp - kext)70Ma,

and, invoking a suspected 6th Cambrian event with a 50% loss as a guess,

N440 = 0.5N600 + (kapp - kext)160M,

and, finally, N600 = 1 + (kapp - kext)(400 to 2400Ma).

This removes extinction losses from the average extinction rate; the suspected Cambrian event's inclusion further reduces the background extinction rate. Working backward through the equations, substituting the last, for N600, into that for N440, and into ta-da, ta-da, we get

N0 = 6 x 10-4 + (130-140 Ma)(kapp - kext). The difference between the appearance and background extinction rates has increased from 0.003 - 0.01 to 0.07 - 0.08/a ; still no real insights regarding magnitudes for the gross appearance and extinction rates.

I've been a little distracted by a discussion on the Social Sciences sub-forum, and am only now getting back to this one; sorry.[:(]

Thanks to Evo and Rader for some excellent links and resources; any comments from Bystander? Ivan? Russ?? (seems we've lost Russ).

Bystander, I'm in the slow class today, and I don't really follow what you wrote. So I re-worked it, using just 1Ga, and units that I'm more comfortable with (I can see Andre shaking his head [b(]; he had just begun to form a favourable impression of me [;)]):

Number of species today = Number of species which appeared over the past 1 billion years minus the number which went extinct in this same 1 billion years.

If we assume that there are 10 million species today, then there have been, on average, 0.01 net new species per year, over the past 1 billion years.

Of course, 10 million is almost certainly the difference between two much larger numbers, {though I can't see how Bystander got one of the numbers to be ~1 billion [:(]}

In approach #2, we plug in estimates of the number of species lost in each of the five mass extinctions:

Number of species today = 35% of those present before the KT event + the number of net new species in the last 65 million years; the latter we assume to be the background new species rate (per year) times the number of years (65 million).

Similarly for the Triassic, Permian, and Devonian mass extinctions, using species survival data from Thomas. {I'm not sure which 'Thomas' Bystander is refering to - Chris Thomas, of Britain's University of Leeds perhaps? and what are the percentages of species which survived each mass extinction?}

Number of species just before the Devonian mass extinction = 35% of those present before the Ordovician event + the number of net new species in the 70 million years between the Ordovician and Devonian mass extinctions; the latter we assume to be the background new species rate (per year) times the number of years (70 million).

Then, including a postulated early Cambrian event which wiped out 50% of the species at the time:

Number of species just before the Ordovician mass extinction = 50% of those present before the Cambrian event + the number of net new species in the 160 million years between the Cambrian and Ordovician mass extinctions; the latter we assume to be the background new species rate (per year) times the number of years (160 million).

Finally, just before the Cambrian mass extinction:

Number of species just before the Cambrian mass extinction = 1 (the original species!) + the number of net new species in the 400 million years between the origin of species and Cambrian mass extinction; the latter we assume to be the background new species rate (per year) times the number of years (600 million).

The difference between the rate of appearance of species and the rate of extinction of species is then obtained by simple algebra from the above.

Bystander, please correct anything which is substantially incorrect, in terms of a re-statement of your point.

Nereid

[Edit: formats and added Bystander's conclusion]

[Bystander]

Ellen (?)Thomas, one of the early links posted; if we've got 10M species at present, and we take the "estimates" in the links that there have been 100 -1000 extinctions for everything we see today, that gives us rough numbers for the first approach.

Otherwise, looks like you've got the gist of things --- mostly an attempt to "fence" some of the numbers in a little --- none of this qualifies as limits or boundary conditions on a problem statement.

I've been going to play the same game with the categories listed in the "earthtrends" link evo posted --- not far enough up "the list" at the moment (or, I've not worked far enough down). Doubt there's data enough to get past the KT event.

[Andre]

Nereid, you said:

(I can see Andre shaking his head ; he had just begun to form a favourable impression of me

Don't worry, I have a positive idea about people, especially when they show common sense and like reasoning.

As you know, I'm working on an rather extreme idea and I'd like people with a lot of common sense to judge me.

As far as this extinction is concerned, what woulds be the impression of the geologic explorer of 63 My in the future, He will unable to discriminate the Foraminifera extinction of the mid Pleistocene (7-900 Ky ago) with the megafauna extinction (11,760-3700 years ago. Simply because it's to close together looking at million years in the future. Let alone the expected extinction due to climate and/or due to antropogenic biotope destruction or other causes. And if we have no good clue on the mass extinction of 63 Kya (http://town.morrison.co.us/dinosaur/extinction/meteor.html) the current situation may not be that logical at all. What I'm trying to say it that the Palaeotologist of 63 My years ago could tell a totally different witness story than we could imagine today. As we -in our turn-, we could tell the paleontoloogist of 63 My in the future that there was not a concentrated mass extinction at all, just an array of coincidences, unusual oceanic current changes for the mid pleistocene foriminifera extinctions and climatical upheaval in the late Pleistocene/holocene boundary for the Megafauna extinction and finally all kind of Anthropogenic reasons for thecurrent alleged extinction wave.

Well not really that alleged, we lost the Dodo (1755) the Giant Moa (1773) the Elephant Bird (17th century) the Cape Lion (1885) the Tarpan (1879) the Quagga (1883) the Great Auk (1844) the Passenger Pigeon (1914) the Carolina Parakeet (1914) 27 species birds became extinct between 1927 and 1944, Moreover, the Barbary Lion (1920) and the Tasmanian Wolf (date unkwown)

Just atempting to show that even mass extinctions may be a lot more complicated.

[Nereid]

Thanks for the kind words Andre.

There are an awful lot more megafauna extinctions to include; a partial list, from memory:
- many, many other Pacific island extinctions, esp of birds (however, per Bystander, the extent to which any individual island ecologies show up in the fossil record is an open question)
- North (and South?) American and Australian megafauna extinctions - the timing appears to coincide with the arrival of a particularly destructive animal (Homo sap.), which may also have contributed to widespread climate change (the Tasmanian tiger was one of the last, lucky survivors; there was a rich collection of marsupials - 'lions', kangaroos, ... - that died out; the introduced dog ('dingo') may also have contributed to the extinction of hundreds of species of smaller marsupials).

Bystander, I resonate with the 'working down the list'; my prioritisation includes 'can address in a few minutes' (gets to be high on the list, almost irrespective of importance). Thanks for you clarifications.

[Bystander]

Correction: Evo's link is the following (don't think this copy works),

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/t...nservation.html, and I'd feel so much better about using the species counts in the various categories if the site did not also include the following, "Prairie dogs once roamed freely over 100 million acres of the Great Plains states, but are now confined to under 700,000 acres (table 31e.6)." 700,000 acres?! I'm reasonably certain that there are single "dog towns" that size and larger in CO, NM, WY, KS, OK, TX, and maybe Nebraska. 700,000 sq. mi.? Probably not --- 70,000 might be about right (45 million acres for the math impaired).

The data problem is gonna kill this project.

[Andre]

Nereid

North (and South?) American and Australian megafauna extinctions - the timing appears to coincide with the arrival of a particularly destructive animal (Homo sap.), which may also have contributed to widespread climate change

I gues that the role of the Clovis people in the megafauna extinction at the Holocene boundary and and their arrival in America is highly disputed. I gues you could fill a modest library in the dispute about ill, chill, or kill.

There is some evidence that humans were present in North Siberia in the mid Pleistocene but they may not have reached Beringia before the Holocene. Moreover Argentinian early aecheologic sites date back to roughly the same period, suggesting that other migration routes may have been likely also (remember Thor Heyerdahl). All this is feeding the objections to those popular hypotheses. Moreover, the few spearheads found on paleonthologic findings in relation to sites with absence of that evidence, are making it very hard to associate the human appearance with many extinctions. Most certainly not the megafauna extinction of North Siberia, where arid grassy steppes seemed to have changed to moist peat swamps about overnight. Too much for the Mammoths to cope with.

[Nereid]

Andre wrote: I guess you could fill a modest library in the dispute about ill, chill, or kill. Too right mate [:(] [*(] .

Perhaps the Australian case is more clear cut?Bystander wrote: The data problem is gonna kill this project. That may turn out to be the case (perhaps that's why Russ bailed out on us?), but I think we can at least put good bounds on #6 (yes or no).

[Andre]

Too right mate
:D
Nope, it aint.

http://www.utah.edu/unews/releases/01/jun/australia.html
We found that the disappearance of the large animals in Australia seemed to occur in a very short time interval 46,000 years ago, which is 10,000 to 15,000 years after the arrival of humans.
Perhaps indeed but
Ayliffe doubts the early human population was large enough to hunt large animals to extinction quickly, meaning in hundreds of years. She believes early humans - nomadic hunter-gatherers who were the ancestors of modern aborigines - gradually destroyed animal habitat by setting fires to drive game into the open, and that the habitat loss ultimately led to mass extinction over thousands of years.

There is evidence of increased frequency of fires at the time of extinction," she said. A small number of people "can set fire to a large area of land, which renders that area unusable for the animals.

It appears that being a paleothologist not automatically qualifies for environmental science. The role is forest fires is much more complicated. Forest fires are and integral part of the natural balance. You cant set fire to something that was burned recently and if something is going to burn anyway, dry lightning will do it for you eventually, regardless if there where vicious people, seeking to destroy their own habitat. So this line of reasoning can be disputed. It will not however, because it supports the alleged evilness of mankind and that seems to be very popular these days.

However, we are part of the nature, not an enemy and we are certainly not capable to destroy it. Relax.

But could there be a natural geologic cause of the Australian extinctions? The only geologic events that come into mind are the Dansgaard-Oeschger events that- together with the Clathrate gun hypothesis (Kennett et al 1999)-may have been the trigger of a most unusual scenario. Thinking about it.

[Bystander]

"#6? Yes or no?" Mebbe --- I ain't quit yet --- signal:noise is starting to look like one tough problem.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Bystander
"#6? Yes or no?" Mebbe --- I ain't quit yet --- signal:noise is starting to look like one tough problem. Wasn't it always going to be? That's partly why I think it's well worth the effort to look at this one in some detail.

(In case regular readers hadn't already noticed, I've been rather consumed by a series of discussions in Social Sciences; I just can't help myself there. If you've opinions too, please don't be shy. I really want to keep this thread going, and will put the time in when I can).

[Bystander]

To the bitter end. However, I'm stuck at the moment for ways and means to detect 2-3 new species within the 10k or so new identifications per year (consistent with 2-3k appearances per year globally, if we apply a first order rate model to the Lake Victoria cichlids, and extrapolate that to the 10M estimate for total extant species). Doesn't look to be demonstrable, leaving me to argue from order of magnitude rate estimates vs. demonstrable disappearances.

[Nereid]

I've got a couple of difficulties with Bystander's approach, apart from the ones he (she?) has already identified:
- a background rate of extinctions that is constant through all between-mass-extinction pairs would seem unlikely. Suppose we got a clear answer at the end of our quest, and the loser was sore; a simple challenge would be 'but the background rate in the pre-Cambrian was quite different than that from 65Mya to 1 Mya!'
- much more difficult - since estimates of the number species of unicellular organisms is at best, very poorly constrained - the two numbers we'd be taking the difference between could be much larger than two or three orders of magnitude.

Avoiding these kinds of problems was partly why I suggested limiting ourselves to a) multicellular critters, and b) only some well-defined subset of all such.

Could I suggest a little side project? What does the fossil record of the last 65 million years say about the prevalence of chordates and magnoliophyta?

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid
- a background rate of extinctions that is constant through all between-mass-extinction pairs would seem unlikely.

Uh-huh --- and the distribution of rates about the average is unknown, leaving us in unknown territory as far as stating that an observed rate is not only "high," but of a magnitude that it may be accorded "event" status.

- much more difficult - since estimates of the number species of unicellular organisms is at best, very poorly constrained - the two numbers we'd be taking the difference between could be much larger than two or three orders of magnitude.

Again, uh-huh --- we have no idea what "high" rates are.

Avoiding these kinds of problems was partly why I suggested limiting ourselves to a) multicellular critters, and b) only some well-defined subset of all such.

"Well defined" is going to be open to interpretation: 1M + 10k new IDs/a in a 10M total estimate; some of the anecdotal, or not so anecdotal, information about salmon "picking sides" in a lake; the incomplete nature of the fossil record; and the open questions re. evolutionary mechanisms and selection mechanisms.

Could I suggest a little side project? What does the fossil record of the last 65 million years say about the prevalence of chordates and magnoliophyta?

Or, what's the "party line" on two separate families (depending upon the taxonomy to which one subscribes) evolving/selecting large, hairy, tusked, proboscidean forms during the pleistocene; i.e., just what is the official story on environments and megafauna? Low primary productivity implies megafauna? Or, high primary productivity? It comes and goes as far as fossil record appears to indicate, but what drives the appearances and extinctions of such?

[lab rat]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Can anyone name one new species to evolve in the last 100 years?

I can name many species that have gone extinct in the same time. In other words, the times scales discussed seem much too large. If we are creating a mass exinction the applicable time scale is in hundreds of years, not thousands or millions.

Here is a blurb from an article about a new species of whale. I attached the article if anyone is interested.

June 26, 2002 - In the mid-1970s, four rare beaked whales washed ashore dead on the coast near San Diego, California. James Mead, a leading authority on beaked whales from the Smithsonian, examined the skulls of these animals and tentatively identified them as the Southern Hemisphere species Mesoplodon hectori. At that time, there were a dozen named species of beaked whales (Ziphiidae) within the genus Mesoplodon that were diagnosed primarily by the size, shape, and position of an enlarged pair of teeth in the adult males. Two decades later, Merel Dalebout a graduate student from the University of Auckland analyzed DNA sequence data and found that these California animals clustered far apart on a phylogenetic tree from the Southern Hemisphere specimens of Mesoplodon hectori. Working together, Dalebout, Mead, and co-workers are now formally describing this heretofore unrecognized new species in the current issue of Marine Mammal Science (1). The new species, Mesoplodon perrini, is named after William F. Perrin, a preeminent marine mammal systematist and conservationist.

Taken from this article
----> http://www.lam.mus.ca.us/research/mammals/beakedwhale.htm (New Species of Whale)

[Bystander]

New? Or, newly identified? Plus, sounding like the last of their species from the description of the discovery --- is it an "appearance," or an "extinction?"

[lab rat]

I guess that's open to your interpretation. I read the story and a couple of related stories and [to me] it sounds like it's a new species in the last 25 years.

[lab rat]

Oh, Bystander, I do see your point about a few new species and many, many, many disappearing. I'm not trying to stir things up here, I just remembered hearing about the whales a couple of years ago so I posted it.

[Bystander]

Not arguing with you on the point --- just echoing the problem with "interpretation," definition, and whatnot that we've been running into in this thread.

It's about boiled down to two possible conclusions: 1) mine, that there is insufficient evidence to reach any conclusions (not likely to budge from it); 2) and Nereid's, whatever it may be.

Do I feel that swapping tigers for 23 new species of cane toads is a fair deal? No. Are we in the middle of a "great extinction?" "Hubris" is a twenty dollar word --- bible thumpers say, "pride" --- funding proposals are successful in direct proportion to the fear that can be generated (Manhattan Project, Cold War, AIDS) --- how many observatories and astronomers are being funded by fear of "great impactors?" Not many --- it's peanuts. How much money can be shaken from the Congressional tree by pointing out changes in flora, fauna, and climate as if they've never been observed before? Tons --- very big business. Ethics and big business? Not in my lifetime.

[Bystander]

Actually, we've got big problems here; none of our hypotheses are falsifiable --- I have to have an unbroken global record of species appearances and extinctions to demonstrate that N.'s assertion that the current extinction rate is high enough to count as an "event" is false, and N. has to have an unbroken record to demonstrate that my assertion that appearance and extinction rates are of the order of 103 is false.

Stalemate.

[Nereid]

Bystander wrote:*SNIP Or, what's the "party line" on two separate families (depending upon the taxonomy to which one subscribes) evolving/selecting large, hairy, tusked, proboscidean forms during the pleistocene; i.e., just what is the official story on environments and megafauna? Low primary productivity implies megafauna? Or, high primary productivity? It comes and goes as far as fossil record appears to indicate, but what drives the appearances and extinctions of such?

later:

*SNIP I have to have an unbroken global record of species appearances and extinctions to demonstrate that N.'s assertion that the current extinction rate is high enough to count as an "event" is false *SNIP Which is partly why I wanted Bystander (and Russ, but he's absconded - sure to get a bad mid-term report) to define (a method for determining) the background rate*!

But wait! Didn't we agree that there have been mass extinctions in the past (step 1 in the proposal)? If we did, how did Bystander (and Russ?) come to be comfortable with the idea that there *was* a mass extinction at the KT boundary, the late Triassic, Permian/Triassic, late Devonian, and late Ordovician?

So, to convince the most skeptical participant, how about we ask Bystander what convinced him that there were five (six, including the Cambrian) mass extinctions? Then we work together to find a way to repeat the steps - as closely as we can - for today's mass extinction (per Nereid's - and Ward's, and ... assertion)?

Hey prodigal child Russ - care to rejoin us? Andre, are you as skeptical as Bystander and Russ? Anyone else?

*My proposal, from the start of this thread:
"1) We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction.

2) Bystander and Russ propose a definition of the 'normal' or 'background' extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

3) We agree on what the actual background extinction rate has been, up to 1mya.

4) I propose a means of estimating the present extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

5) I will make an estimate of the present extinction rate; we discuss it."

[Bystander]

Appearance -extinction = 0.01 -0.1 species/a --- there isn't data to plot the difference as a function of time; there is no way to demonstrate a real time modern appearance rate; there is no way to demonstrate a modern real time difference in rates; there are no data to support absolute values of historcal/paleontological rates to much better than 2-3 orders of magnitude.

Two equations (modern extinction rate estimate), the average rate difference over geological time, and three unknowns --- the system is indeterminate.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Bystander
Appearance -extinction = 0.01 -0.1 species/a --- there isn't data to plot the difference as a function of time; there is no way to demonstrate a real time modern appearance rate; there is no way to demonstrate a modern real time difference in rates; there are no data to support absolute values of historcal/paleontological rates to much better than 2-3 orders of magnitude.

Two equations (modern extinction rate estimate), the average rate difference over geological time, and three unknowns --- the system is indeterminate. Or, in other words, we won't know we've been living through the sixth mass extinction until (a few million years) afterwards. At that future time, it will become obvious there's been a mass extinction.

But, do you consider there have been five earlier mass extinctions? (more?) If so, what was it that lead you to that conclusion?

[Bystander]

Paleontological evidence "suggests" extinction events --- alternative explanations have been proposed. What do I find more credible about the idea of abrupt mass extinctions (impactors) than pandemic "creeping crud," or deep freezes, or Siberian or Deccan Traps? Very few extraordinary circumstances and events have to be invoked to explain abrupt changes in globalfloral and faunal distributions in the fossil record.

Parsimony.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Bystander
Paleontological evidence "suggests" extinction events --- alternative explanations have been proposed. What do I find more credible about the idea of abrupt mass extinctions (impactors) than pandemic "creeping crud," or deep freezes, or Siberian or Deccan Traps? Very few extraordinary circumstances and events have to be invoked to explain abrupt changes in globalfloral and faunal distributions in the fossil record.

Parsimony. A paraphrase: if the cause seems credible, the evidence can be accepted? If not, then the evidence isn't credible??

'abrupt' =~+/- 1 million years?
'global' = >10 sites separated by >1,000 km at the time?
'floral change' = ~>3 Divisions lose >~30% of their Families?
'faunal change' =~>3 Phyla lose >~30% of their Families?

Let's have some numbers please!

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid
A paraphrase: if the cause seems credible, the evidence can be accepted? If not, then the evidence isn't credible??

Did I fall off the turnip truck yesterday? Evidence is "credible" regardless; the hand-waving one chooses to use to explain the evidence can be credible, incredible, supported by the evidence, or not supported by the evidence, depending on the gullibility of the audience.

'abrupt' =~+/- 1 million years?

Oh, hell, let's play catastrophist --- I gave you 1Ma earlier, but you want to ask a second time --- let's say it's all over but the shouting in a day, and let the shouting last 30 yrs. for last survivors.

The stratigraphic record doesn't really have a resolution less than 1 Ma --- as a result, the paleo types fall into catastrophist and gradualist schools, and without discovery of mixed ground fish, dinos, and shrubbery in TX or SA turbidites, that argument is never going to be resolved.

'global' = >10 sites separated by >1,000 km at the time?

Tain't likely all the big 5(6) stand up to this test --- evident in all known outcrops of specified age suit you?

'floral change' = ~>3 Divisions lose >~30% of their Families?
'faunal change' =~>3 Phyla lose >~30% of their Families?

OK last time we went through this part.

Let's have some numbers please!

That's the point: we are talking about THREE numbers, appearance rate, extinction rate, and the difference between the two. We can determine an AVERAGE value for the difference over geological time. We CANNOT determine an instantaneous value for historical cases, or for the present. We have no values for appearance or extinction rates historically or for real time. There are ESTIMATES of an extinction rate based on a mix of "specialist" and other type species. If we agree to delete the "specialist" species from the rate estimate, there is still NO basis for concluding anything, because we lack information on the appearance rate, the historical extinction rate, and on the variation of appearance and extinction rates.

I can't state it any more clearly, "There is insufficient information available to conclude a damned thing."

[Bystander]

Sole', et al, Nature, vol. 388, 21 Aug., 1997, pp. 764-6.

Might as well get the third horse into this race. Everyone in the "chaos crowd" should like this.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Bystander
Sole', et al, Nature, vol. 388, 21 Aug., 1997, pp. 764-6.

Might as well get the third horse into this race. Everyone in the "chaos crowd" should like this. I'm pretty sure this (http://pangea.stanford.edu/Oceans/GES290/SOC/GES290sole1997.pdf) is the paper you're referring to.

Nereid: "But, do you consider there have been five earlier mass extinctions? (more?) If so, what was it that lead you to that conclusion?"

Bystander: "Paleontological evidence "suggests" extinction events --- alternative explanations have been proposed. What do I find more credible about the idea of abrupt mass extinctions (impactors) than pandemic "creeping crud," or deep freezes, or Siberian or Deccan Traps? Very few extraordinary circumstances and events have to be invoked to explain abrupt changes in globalfloral and faunal distributions in the fossil record.

Parsimony."

Sorry, I really am in the slow class today, ... your POV is that we can't really discuss a purported sixth mass extinction, because we haven't yet agreed that there've been five mass extinctions (or four, or three, or even one)?

(this is quite separate from any consideration as to whether there is, or could be, sufficient info "to conclude a damn thing")

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid
I'm pretty sure this (http://pangea.stanford.edu/Oceans/GES290/SOC/GES290sole1997.pdf) is the paper you're referring to.

Yup.

Sorry, I really am in the slow class today, ... your POV is that we can't really discuss a purported sixth mass extinction, because we haven't yet agreed that there've been five mass extinctions (or four, or three, or even one)?

Nope.

POV is,"Extinction rate, estimated, calculated, divined by Madame Cleo, is meaningless outside a context of historical extinction rates." The only historical information I can see/agree to at the moment is that we can calculate/estimate an average difference in appearance and extinction rates; there is not adequate evidence to support estimates of absolute values for either.

The paper is "grist for your mill" --- you might be able to winkle out an idea of where the current extinction rate estimates fit within the power law distribution, and maybe some idea of absolute rate --- I ain't gonna mess with it right now. Their remarks re. power law and the "big 5(6)" as far as them being indistinguishable from other extinctions depend on time frames (stratigraphic uncertainty being a few Ma in all cases for their purposes); more recently (no ref. at hand) the KT(?) has been pinned to something like 100ka for an outcrop in China --- might actually throw that one outside the fit.

Fair 'nuff?

[Nereid]

Bystander wrote: *SNIP
The only historical information I can see/agree to at the moment is that we can calculate/estimate an average difference in appearance and extinction rates
*SNAP How?

[Bystander]

Originally posted by Nereid
(snip)The difference between the rate of appearance of species and the rate of extinction of species is then obtained by simple algebra from the above.(snip)

"How?"

You followed it once, seemed to get along with the idea, and now you ask, "How?"

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Bystander
"How?"

You followed it once, seemed to get along with the idea, and now you ask, "How?" Just want to be sure [;)]

In terms of my original proposal:
1) We all agree on what constitutes a mass extinction.

2) Bystander and Russ propose a definition of the 'normal' or 'background' extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

3) We agree on what the actual background extinction rate has been, up to 1mya.

4) I propose a means of estimating the present extinction rate; we discuss it and agree.

5) I will make an estimate of the present extinction rate; we discuss it.

Supplementary topic: if we agree that number six is in progress, then we look for causes.

We agreed (more or less) on 1).

Bystander decided that 2) was impossible to work with, in any practical sense (and Russ is playing truant).

Which means the end of this little experiment (unless someone would like to suggest how we could continue). [:(]

It's been pretty quiet; since 29 Feb, only Nereid and Bystander - have we bored everyone to tears? [*(]

[Bystander]

Mass extinction of the audience --- no sound but the crickets. Actually been fun --- learned a couple things.

There may be something hiding in the power law distribution material, but that's gonna be a while.

Later --- B.

[meteor]

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service



Earth faces sixth mass extinction


19:00 18 March 04

NewScientist.com news service

The Earth may be on the brink of a sixth mass extinction on a par with the five others that have punctuated its history, suggests the strongest evidence yet.

Butterflies in Britain are going extinct at an even greater rate than birds, according to the most comprehensive study ever of butterflies, birds, and plants.

There is growing concern over the rate at which species of plants and animals are disappearing around the world. But until now the evidence for such extinctions has mainly come from studies of birds. "The doubters could always turn around and say that there's something peculiar about birds that makes them susceptible to the impact of man on the environment," says Jeremy Greenwood of the British Trust for Ornithology in Norfolk, and one of the research team.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994797

[Bystander]

Meteor-

Nereid thanks you, and I thank you --- the silence in this thread has been deafening. This is another version of what started this thread ---- sorta "deja vu all over again." We got stalled by my refusal to consider extinction rates alone as sufficient cause for concern, coupled with the fact that "appearances" are difficult to observe.

"--- populations of 71 percent of the butterfly species have decreased over the last 20 years, compared to 56 percent for birds and 28 percent for plants. Two butterfly species (3.4 percent of total) became extinct, compared to six (0.4 percent) of the plant species ----" This isn't too horribly out of line with first order rate estimates based on Lake Victoria cichlids (appearance and extinction rates in my analysis) --- 3x10-4/a taken over a twenty year interval is 0.6%; compared to observed rates of 3.4, 0.4, and 0.0 for three species groups, I'd have to say, "No surprises here." Nereid may have other conclusions and comments.

The population studies likewise have to be examined in a broader context --- is the island turning a dead brown, or are populations of other species increasing? Population biology is a completely different problem and, excepting the cases where populations crash to zero, unrelated to the extinction problem.

[Andre]

OK, some feedback on this old thread based on the alarming hype about extinction (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/08/nsci08.xml) that triggered this thread (alliterations allowed?) into existence.

I may have remarked that this was the worst sciencific paper I have ever seen, the model was based almost solely on extrapolating some extinctions of the last few decades that were not caused by changing climate at all. Furthermore, of the some 33 identified major (climate(?) upheavals in the last million years there is only one that is associated with some explicit extinctions (the Pleistocene steppe megafauna Mammoths) around 11,570 years ago.

Well. Here is the retreat (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F05%2F02%2Fngreen02 .xml).

Charities 'spread scare stories on climate change to boost public donations'
By Elizabeth Day
(Filed: 02/05/2004)

Environmental charities are exaggerating the threat of climate change in an attempt to raise more money from public donations, according to a report by Oxford University academics....

[Bystander]

Eeehhhhhhhhh ---- hmmmm. Sloppy science begets sloppy journalism begets sloppy public interest group activities begets sloppy political activism begets sloppy funding of sloppy science? Naaahhh --- people are opportunists --- Svante Arrhenius speculated about "global warming" a century ago, and people have been hunting ways to connect their names with his since then. That, plus the "publish or perish peer review process" has placed a number of speculations into the public record that would have been "edited" to the circular file by the pre-WWII scientific establishment --- violations of first principles and basics of technique, and just plain WRONG science did not get published in them days. Today, 10k journals competing for space on shelves waste a lot of paper and ink publishing "peer-reviewed" pure bunkum --- post WWII/Cold War peer-review is more a matter of "don't trash me and I won't trash you 'cause we're both in the same publish or perish boat."

[Andre]

Just for the record another casual opinion on that paper:

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040114-083322-9283r.htm

Massive extinction of logic
By Patrick J. Michaels

Much has been made of a paper published on Jan. 8 in the journal Nature by Chris Thomas and 18 co-authors, claiming global warming will cause a massive extinction of the Earth's biota. Mr. Thomas told The Washington Post: "We're talking about 1.25 million species. It's a massive number."
It turns out that there is a massive number of glaring problems with their study that clearly eluded the peer review process. This is evinced by the rapid turnaround for the manuscript, with acceptance in final form a mere five weeks after original submission. No one can clear revisions through 19 authors in that time unless there weren't many revisions suggested, or, if there were, they were ignored by the journal's editors in a rush to publication.

In fact, acrimonious debates about what should or should not be published about global warming are the rule rather than the exception, simply because papers are being published — on many sides of the issue — that can be shredded after only a cursory review. Unfortunately, the debate may have started with Nature itself.

In 1996, conveniently a day before the U.N. conference that gave birth to the Kyoto Protocol, Nature published a paper purporting to match observed temperature with computer models of disastrous warming. It used weather balloon data from 1963 through 1987. The actual record, however, extended (then) from 1958 through 1995, and, when all the data were used, the troubling numbers disappeared. Since that famous incident, people have been very leery of what major scientific journals publish on global warming. The Thomas extinction paper only throws more fuel on an already roaring inferno.

The work of Mr. Thomas et al. is an interesting exercise in computer modeling showing again that what comes out of a computer is a product of the assumptions that go in. The scientists examined the distribution of more than 1,000 plants and animal species, calculated their current climatic range, and then used a climate model to determine whether the amount of land the species could occupy in the future would shrink or expand. If there was a likely shrinkage, the researchers expected an increased chance of extinction.

etc, etc

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.